A former high-ranking Los Angeles city attorney authorized a class-action lawsuit against the city in hopes of getting a favorable settlement for L.A. and then repeatedly misled the court and public about his role in the scheme, a judge ruled Tuesday.
In a 50-page ruling, California State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland found that Jim Clark, former chief deputy attorney under then-City Atty. Mike Feuer, committed “multiple acts of moral turpitude and concealment” related to his involvement in the city attorney’s office’s handling of the legal fallout over a faulty Department of Water and Power billing system.
Roland recommended a two-year suspension of Clark’s law license, contingent on him taking various ethics and law-related courses.
Unless either side appeals, the decision will head to the state Supreme Court for approval.
“This decision is both unjust and wrong,” said Clark’s attorney, Erin Joyce. “We are considering next steps, including appeal.”
Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona said in a statement that the court found that Clark “engaged in serious misconduct marked by prolonged deceit that significantly eroded public trust and confidence” in the city attorney’s office.
“The State Bar remains committed to pursuing misconduct of this type, regardless of the positions held by the attorneys engaging in it,” Cardona said.
The scandal dates back to 2013, when a new DWP billing system issued erroneous bills to thousands of customers, including a Van Nuys couple billed nearly $52,000.
With the city facing multiple lawsuits over the billing debacle, Clark helped oversee a friendly class-action lawsuit against the city, the judge found. With an attorney on the plaintiffs’ side of the lawsuit colluding with the city’s team, the city could settle the claims on favorable terms.
After the sham lawsuit was revealed, Clark and others in the city attorney’s office blamed other attorneys. The city attorney’s office also spent tens of millions of dollars on outside attorneys in a related case, with Clark and others repeatedly denying wrongdoing.
Clark left the city in 2020, a year after the FBI raided City Hall as part of the criminal investigation related to the sham lawsuit. He never faced criminal charges.
Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, said Clark deserved a tougher punishment, including being barred from practicing law in the state.
“If you can’t lose your law license in the State of California for committing a fraud on a court and coordinating a collusive scheme, then what is the purpose of the State Bar?” Court said.
Clark’s trial lasted 32 days over a period of several months.
A surprise witness provided a jolt near the end of the trial.
Michael Nagle, an attorney for the Department of Transportation, testified that he ran into Clark in a City Hall hallway in March 2015.
Clark casually informed Nagle about an upcoming class-action lawsuit that was going to be filed against the city that would be beneficial for the city. The comment was notable because presumably Clark wouldn’t have advance knowledge of a forthcoming legal action.
Nagle testified that he felt compelled to come forward and reveal the conversation to the State Bar court after he read a news story last year in which Clark denied any wrongdoing related to the class-action lawsuit.
